Note that the appeal will be about a point of law - probably about whether the judge was acting correctly and within the law when he made the decision to discharge without conviction, or possibly something else about the trial itself. The appeal isn't going to be about the "fairness" of the decision to discharge. If it's found that he was acting correctly within the law, then his decision stands. I don't expect to see what many people are hoping for - overturning the decision to discharge without conviction and dealing with this person - who IMO acted like a thug - in a more appropriate manner (which doesn't necessarily mean jail).

The law needs changing, also name suppression laws which have the appearance of being abused by the rich and/or powerful to protect themselves (and their families), evidence that this may be the case excluded from the media by the fact that they'd be breaking the law to present it to you, and I'd be breaking the law if I said much more than I've already said.

My feelings is, discharge without conviction was not intended to be offered at the /start/ of a proceeding in these circumstances. There is no significant public benefit in doing so. If that is the case I expect to read about it during the appeal, but who knows some other grounds may be chosen.

vexxxboy: people are also forgetting he was only 17 when the offense occurred, and as such he is classed as a child under the law. Different rules apply.

I was always told at 17 you are an adult in terms of criminal charges.

Oldest age for Youth Court is 16

not quite NZ follows The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Children and young people aged 0 to 17 years old have special rights under the law, and are covered by different laws to adults. Everyone in New Zealand - families, communities and the Government - must work together to make sure your rights are protected.

vexxxboy: people are also forgetting he was only 17 when the offense occurred, and as such he is classed as a child under the law. Different rules apply.

I was always told at 17 you are an adult in terms of criminal charges.

Oldest age for Youth Court is 16

not quite NZ follows The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Children and young people aged 0 to 17 years old have special rights under the law, and are covered by different laws to adults. Everyone in New Zealand - families, communities and the Government - must work together to make sure your rights are protected.

Note that the appeal will be about a point of law - probably about whether the judge was acting correctly and within the law when he made the decision to discharge without conviction, or possibly something else about the trial itself. The appeal isn't going to be about the "fairness" of the decision to discharge. If it's found that he was acting correctly within the law, then his decision stands. I don't expect to see what many people are hoping for - overturning the decision to discharge without conviction and dealing with this person - who IMO acted like a thug - in a more appropriate manner (which doesn't necessarily mean jail).

The law needs changing, also name suppression laws which have the appearance of being abused by the rich and/or powerful to protect themselves (and their families), evidence that this may be the case excluded from the media by the fact that they'd be breaking the law to present it to you, and I'd be breaking the law if I said much more than I've already said.

The Judge started from the point "is it up to the Court to ruin someone's career" which, in my view, has absolutely no place in being considered in the first place. The Court isn't wrecking people's careers (present, future or otherwise) by imposing penalties. The offender is wrecking their career by offending in the first place.

Given the severity of the assault on one person in particular (stomping on his head 4 times) and the massive life changing impact this person has suffered, discharge without conviction is manifestly inadequate. Unfortunately his most serious charge was under section 189(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. If it had been under 189(1) he would have also fallen under section 86A of the Sentencing Act 2002, although the discharge without conviction would have neatly side-stepped this.

OT - I agree that there needs to be some work on the name suppression laws, but they do also serve a necessary purpose which needs to be preserved.

There have been many judgements in the past which have raised eyebrows but, to me, the recent Delegat decision coupled with this one make a good case for bringing in minimum sentencing laws.

vexxxboy:so do you think that sending a 17 year old to a adult prison isnt breaking the UN convention that NZ is meant to be following.

They wouldn't be. Re-read my previous post.

EDIT: Rather than take your word for it I've looked up a UNICEF website and found this:

How does the Convention on the Rights of the Child define a child?The Convention defines a "child" as a person below the age of 18, unless the relevant laws recognize an earlier age of majority. In some cases, States are obliged to be consistent in defining benchmark ages—such as the age for admission into employment and completion of compulsory education; but in other cases the Convention is unequivocal in setting an upper limit—such as prohibiting life imprisonment or capital punishment for those under 18 years of age.

My previous post was wrong, being based on your post which was also wrong. Lesson for me - research first. Relevant NZ law recognises the age of majority in criminal cases as being 17.

How much alcohol related violence do the police see every weekend and late night.

There is nowhere near as much education about this drug as the level of harm demands of it.

The alcohol production industry must be firmly put in it's place so that real education can begin. Clubs and bars are for the most part doing their part in host responsibility, but the education system lags way way way behind mainly because of opposition from the production side.

The Judge started from the point "is it up to the Court to ruin someone's career" which, in my view, has absolutely no place in being considered in the first place. The Court isn't wrecking people's careers (present, future or otherwise) by imposing penalties. The offender is wrecking their career by offending in the first place.

Do we know if that's the basis for the appeal - some kind of argument that this proved the judge decided to go easy from the start?

Dratsab:

OT - I agree that there needs to be some work on the name suppression laws, but they do also serve a necessary purpose which needs to be preserved.

There have been many judgements in the past which have raised eyebrows but, to me, the recent Delegat decision coupled with this one make a good case for bringing in minimum sentencing laws.

Of course there is good reason for name suppression. But there have been cases where young people have been sexually violated, the offender received name suppression because it would identify the victim who was a minor, then later when these victims are of an age where they can make a rational informed decision - that they don't need the protection of the suppression order - they're forever hobbled to never name the offender "uncle x" - who's probably been released. That's nuts.

Also nuts is the fact that we can't mention the case of xxxx who did xxxx and was the xxx of the well known xxxxx, because all details of the case have been suppressed. Now that's a very difficult situation and one which should be very carefully considered before ever granting such a suppression order, as I suppose hypothetically, there could be people out of jurisdiction of NZ law, presenting information which could be found, though it would be illegal for anybody in NZ to look for it, read it if they accidentally stumbled across it, or talk about it or to direct anybody to any such place where that information may be available Then hypothetically, if someone was to find that information, they might not consider that the person(s) making that information available may have some kind of axe to grind, so as well as making suppressed information available, they might add all kinds of other theories and allegations which can't be challenged and might suggest that NZ judicial system is thoroughly rotten to the core. I don't believe we've got that one right either - in that case possibly because of judges being a little naive, but there's always that shadow of doubt that perhaps there is is deep seated corruption - indeed an "old boys club" in a banana republic.

Also nuts is the fact that we can't mention the case of xxxx who did xxxx and was the xxx of the well known xxxxx, because all details of the case have been suppressed. Now that's a very difficult situation and one which should be very carefully considered before ever granting such a suppression order, as I suppose hypothetically, there could be people out of jurisdiction of NZ law, presenting information which could be found, though it would be illegal for anybody in NZ to look for it, read it if they accidentally stumbled across it, or talk about it or to direct anybody to any such place where that information may be available Then hypothetically, if someone was to find that information, they might not consider that the person(s) making that information available may have some kind of axe to grind, so as well as making suppressed information available, they might add all kinds of other theories and allegations which can't be challenged and might suggest that NZ judicial system is thoroughly rotten to the core. I don't believe we've got that one right either - in that case possibly because of judges being a little naive, but there's always that shadow of doubt that perhaps there is is deep seated corruption - indeed an "old boys club" in a banana republic.

I'm not sure this is correct. I'm not sure it isn't, but I think the principle of open justice means anyone in this country can attend any trial. All a suppression order means is that those present in the courtroom, especially media, are prohibited from 'publishing' the suppressed details, but no-one is prohibited from knowing them. There is also no prohibition on communicating them individually from person to person, or reading about them on an overseas website. I may well be wrong, but that is my understanding.

Dratsab: The Judge started from the point "is it up to the Court to ruin someone's career" which, in my view, has absolutely no place in being considered in the first place. The Court isn't wrecking people's careers (present, future or otherwise) by imposing penalties. The offender is wrecking their career by offending in the first place.

Do we know if that's the basis for the appeal - some kind of argument that this proved the judge decided to go easy from the start?

No, that's just my view. I could speculate, but without access to the full summary facts, victim impact statements and the Judges decision (haven't looked to see if it's been published yet) such speculation would be quite idle.

Yes what he did was a terrible act. The pictures of the victims do not paint a good picture and the public has rightly jumped up and down about it, so he should be at least convicted. But I'd like to point out that the full judgement has not been released, what was released was only the judges sentencing summary - which we all know was a discharge without conviction. The full judgement should give more reasons why the judge came to the decision he did.

On the other hand, the fact that he was 17, and had somewhat of a rough upbringing (Waitangirua is about as rough as you can get in Porirua); but he was a pretty good sportsman (in particular rugby, but he was also pretty good at league) with a promising career ahead of him - which make me question whether would a conviction and jail time is right punishment for his crime? The prison system is supposed to be all about rehabilitation. As @MadEngineer has pointed out, jail time is not constructive for young males. Locking him up with other criminals and potentially taking him away from sports and his support network could have disastrous consequences and he could end up going off the rails and being a repeat offender. What purpose would sending him to jail serve? I certainly don't think it would rehabilitate him.

That's where i think the judge was coming from with his verdict. Nothing's guaranteed, Losi (before his contract was terminated) would have still needed to go out and train and commit himself if he was to make it as a professional rugby player. The people involved and the routine of it all surely would have helped kept him out of trouble in the future? The judge didn't want to stifle that by sending him to prison, seems like he wanted to give him a chance to succeed. But now that i think about it, maybe a discharge without conviction was too lenient, conviction maybe, but I certainly don't think jail would be appropriate.

FWIW - the reports of his 150 hours of community service was not a condition of his sentencing, it was voluntary work he under took himself.

Out of interest, a lot of people think it was too lenient but what do people think should have been the verdict? Conviction and jail time? Conviction and community based sentence?

I agree with the publics unhappiness with the court decision, but I dont agree with the medias chewup of the NZRU. I assume its because they have noone else that can be the scape goat for the justice system.

The courts are responsible for the conviction and punishment and until sentence has passed it has not a lot to do with the NZRU.

I only caught the end of it, but it seems Tew rung and said, you got your value in the media or suchlike. Surely not.

This was extreme violence and I believe it required a conviction to reflect that, jail no but certainly home detention and or community service and reparation.

Agree. So what if he travels. I travel. Its just getting a visa than a waiver. Thats something to think about each time you travel. If I did this heinous act, I'd tell the judge that I travel to the Canary Islands to check on my Ponzi winnings every year, so please discharge me.